K KALIAMMAL Vs. ABBAS SAIFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/claimants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.6696 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioners/claimants is that on 27.04.2015 while the deceased person was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-U-3398 at Manamai in the ECR Salai opposite to Empire Estate towards Chennai around 10.30 hours, the car bearing Registration No.TN-07-BJ-4602 came in the opposite direction at high speed, dashed on the motor cycle of the deceased, causing him fatal injuries, resulting in his death. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent vehicle driver. The deceased was aged 20 years and by working as Plumber was earning Rs.21,000/- per month apart from daily batta of Rs.100/-. The petitioners/claimants who are the parents of the deceased were depending on the earning of his son. Due to his sudden demise they have lost the breadwinner of the family. Thus, the petitioners/claimants sought for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioners/claimants, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contends that the petitioners/claimants have to prove that the car bearing Registration No.TN-07-BJ-4602 was insured with the 2nd respondent. The accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioners/claimants. The deceased drove the two wheeler without driving license and the accident occurred only due to his negligence. The claim of the petitioners/claimants about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is not correct. The petitioners/claimants have to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent car possessed valid driving license. The claim of the petitioners/claimants is exorbitant. Thus, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the petition.